Some are More Equal than Others

“One law for thee, another for me” has become the refrain inside the DC Beltway. George Orwell’s prophetic novel “Animal Farm” predicted exactly what is happening in real life in the United States today:


  1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
  2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
  3. No animal shall wear clothes.
  4. No animal shall sleep in a bed.
  5. No animal shall drink alcohol.
  6. No animal shall kill any other animal.
  7. All animals are equal.

Orwell, George (2009-07-01). Animal Farm: A Fairy Story (An Hbj Modern Classic) (p. 21). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Kindle Edition.

Then something changed. The commandments were removed, and one guiding principle was substituted:


Orwell, George (2009-07-01). Animal Farm: A Fairy Story (An Hbj Modern Classic) (p. 118). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Kindle Edition.

In 2012, a naval reservist by the name of Brian Nishimura was successfully prosecuted by the Justice Department for inappropriate handling of classified materials on his personal computer while deployed to Afghanistan from 2007-2008. According to the article (linked above):

Nishimura served as a Regional Engineer and, according to the FBI’s investigation into the incident, “had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers.”

“Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media,” wrote the FBI. “He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment.”

Like Clinton, Nishimura admitted to destroying “a large quantity of classified materials.”

Like Clinton, the FBI investigation into his actions “did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.”

Unlike Clinton, he was sentenced to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials.

He was also “ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance.”

One law for thee, another for me.

In 2012, now-disgraced General David Petraeus (US Army, Retired) resigned his position as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency when it came to light that he had been having an affair with a former junior officer by the name of Paula Broadwell, who was his biographer. In January of 2015, the FBI brought charges against Petraeus for improper handling of classified materials. Initially, he denied the charges and expressed no interest in a plea deal. However, in March of 2015, he did plead guilty to having shared classified documents with Broadwell while she wrote his biography. It is worth noting that she also had some security clearances as an Army Major, with a pending promotion to Lt Colonel (which was eventually was stifled because of the FBI’s investigation into the affair with Patraeus). The General was sentenced to two years’ probation plus a $100,000 fine — which was more than twice the amount the Justice Department had requested.

In addition, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter briefly considered retroactively busting the already-retired Petraeus down from four star general to lieutenant general on the retirement list— a deeply unpopular move smacking of vengeance (Petraeus was not well-liked by the administration), which would have cost Petraeus $50,000/year in pension payments, plus a restitution of $50,000/year of retirement at the higher rank.......a total punishment in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in retirement funds alone. When the news became public, Carter dropped the matter. In the public’s mind, regardless of what people thought of his affairs, Patraeus served the nation ably for four decades and was a reasonably popular figure. You don’t screw a popular general out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in retirement funds after he has already been retired for a while, without incurring a political cost. But we are well beyond that point now, and the democrat party no longer fears political backlash.

One law for thee, another for me.

Paul Thompson is a self-proclaimed political liberal, a registered democrat, and former supporter of Hillary Clinton who believed at first that the political kerfuffle over the Clinton email scandal was much ado about nothing, but he decided that it bore looking into. The trouble is, the more he looked, the more he found wrong.....not wrong accusations, but wrong narrative from the Clinton camp, and he established the website which provides timelines of the entire scandal, to the present, in short, medium, and long detailed versions. For the sake of intellectual integrity (a shrinking commodity these days), he also provides a link to the Clinton Foundation’s Version of event timeline — which Thompson points out is ENTIRELY different in all particulars. I strongly urge my readers to at least read the short version of Thompson’s timeline. One of the particulars it reveals (actually, reminds us of) is that the newly elected Obama administration was busily embroiled in dealing with a similar email scandal which carried over from the Bush administration, in which Bush administration officials were taken to task for using a private email server to discuss administration business off the record. Vox, a left-leaning activism website reported that:

There is simply no way that, when Clinton decided to use her personal email address as Secretary of State, she was unaware of the national scandal that Bush officials had created by doing the same.

That she decided to use her personal address anyway showed a stunning disregard for governmental transparency requirements. Indeed, Clinton did not even bother with the empty gesture of using her official address for more formal business, as Bush officials did.

The most generous interpretation is that she just preferred her personal email. A less generous one is that, like many politicians before her, using a personal email was a deliberate ploy to avoid transparency (Clinton took some hits when she released her private emails as first lady, so transparency had hurt her in the past) and perhaps even hamper potential investigations.

Perhaps even more stunning is that the Obama White House, whose top officials were presumably exchanging frequent emails with Clinton, apparently did not insist she adopt an official email account. At some point during Obama's first year, there must have been at least one senior official who dealt with the political fallout of Karl Rove using a personal address, then turned around and fired off an email to the personal address that Hillary Clinton used exclusively. That this continued for four years is baffling.

What’s even more baffling is that it was reported of Hillary Clinton in 2007 during her presidential primary campaign:

In 2007, then-Sen. Clinton (D-N.Y.) said during a speech to a progressive audience, "Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps, we know about the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts ... it’s a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok."

A top adviser to Clinton's nascent campaign in the current presidential cycle, John Podesta, also in 2007 accused President Bush's administration of using private emails to circumvent transparency rules.

One law for thee, another for me.

As we all now know, FBI Director James Comey announced yesterday that they are recommending no charges be filed against Hillary Clinton. Some of the relevant laws which Comey has essentially rewritten are:

In 2008, Hillary Clinton set up a private email server in her home, and used it in violation of federal law to handle her email while she was serving (some would say, “increasing her personal fortune”) as Secretary of State. That server was completely unsecured. Hundreds, if not thousands, of classified records were sent across that server in her emails and those of her minions. When caught, she immediately deleted 30,000 emails from that server. She then stonewalled the investigation for at least two years. ALL of this is documented fact.

A week ago, former President (and the man who nominated Loretta Lynch to the position of U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York in 1999) Bill Clinton was sitting in a private jet on the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor airport, waiting for takeoff. At the time, (now) Attorney General Loretta Lynch was about to arrive in her jet at the same airport. A private meeting aboard Clinton’s jet ensued between the two, producing horrible optics. Both parties claim that it was a chance meeting and that all they talked about was golf and grandchildren. But it was NOT chance. Bill Clinton ordered his pilot to delay his departure by something like 20 minutes so that he could meet with Lynch, who had not yet arrived. This fact is backed up by all witnesses to the event except the two miscreants. There is NO WAY that Hillary Clinton’s predicament was not discussed, and it is not hard to hazard a guess that Bill Clinton reminded Lynch that, but for him, she would still be an Assistant U.S. Attorney in some east coast office somewhere. Some have intimated that threats were involved. I don’t think threats were necessary. These people are all part of the same cabal. A favor was owed, and on that day at Sky Harbor, Loretta made good on the debt. The media’s reaction? Sad because it makes “everyone” look bad, but not so much worried that something might actually be untoward and sketchy.

A few days later, AG Loretta Lynch announces that she will follow whatever recommendations are given her by the investigating attorneys of the DOJ, wherever they lead, but that she does not expect any charges to be forthcoming.

And a couple of days after that, Director Comey makes his announcement, shaking the confidence of 70% of the electorate in the impartiality of the Justice Dept.

One law for thee, another for me.

In one case, an obscure navy veteran, with no malice in his heart, took shortcuts with classified materials. He did not contest the charges. The FBI admits that his behavior did not reveal any intent to give away secrets, but even so, AND UNLIKE CLINTON, he gets slapped with two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials (meaning his personal computer was confiscated), and he permanently lost his security clearance, and with it, his job.

In another case, a very public and popular military figure, without malice, shared classified information with his biographer — who also held some security clearances, and with whom he was having an affair. Investigators do not charge him with trying to give the information away, they charge him with “unauthorized removal and retention of classified information”. He fairly quickly decides not to contest the charges. He receives a sentence of two years of probation plus a $100,000 fine (not to mention the threats against his pension).

In a third case, a very public and polarizing political figure who has never served her country, but has used her gov’t positions to line her bank account; who was WELL aware that what she was doing was illegal; improperly handled classified information on an unsecured server in the basement of her home, 200 miles away from her office. She destroyed public records in violation of federal law. She stonewalled investigators for two years. The FBI - as they did in the first two cases - say that there was no deliberate attempt to divulge secrets in a malicious way. But UNLIKE the other two cases, the FBI does not recommend charges. Why?

It is almost impossible to escape the conclusion that the fix was in. The third person happens to be the democrat party’s candidate for President of the United States. The FBI Director was appointed by her former boss when she was Secretary of State - the current President of the United States, a democrat. The FBI Director’s boss - the current Attorney General - is a democrat who was appointed as a U.S. Attorney by the husband of the current candidate back when he was President of the United States. The Attorney General, who owed a favor to the husband of the person being investigated was nominated to her office by the current President. A week ago, the husband and the AG meet in private. A few days later, the FBI recommends no charges be filed. EVERYTHING points to her guilt. EVERYTHING points to the fact that she knew she was guilty. But no charges. Instead, this conspiracy of thugs colluded to clear the way for her election. There is NO WAY she is not guilty. There is NO WAY her case deserves to be treated any differently than the other two cases received. But Hillary Clinton is skating on a fairly serious charge - and THIS is the person who will be leading our nation further down the rosy path to national socialism.........a state under which officialdom is free to perpetrate the most grievous crimes because there is no accountability or moral center left in the system.

One law for thee, another for me.

I ask my reader: when you read this, does it restore your faith in the rule of law, or do you conclude as I do that we are now under the rule of men instead, and that the Constitutional Republic is dead?

This nation is doomed unless the American voter wakes up and smells the coffee, and begins to demand the same kind of accountability from officialdom that officialdom demands from them. I am not optimistic.

They think we'll recommend charges?


Print Email

1000 Characters left